To amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to expand and clarify the entities against which sanctions may be imposed.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1400) to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by imposing additional economic sanctions against Iran, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will address the United Nations General Assembly in just a couple of hours, the latest step in his campaign to remove all obstacles to Tehran's headlong pursuit of nuclear weapons. We, in turn, must resolve to use every available peaceful means, economic, political, and diplomatic, to put a stop to that deadly, dangerous pursuit.

Peaceful persuasion in this instance will require a lot of leverage. Strong international sanctions must be imposed against the regime in Tehran, biting sanctions that will bring about a change in policy.

Ideally, Mr. Speaker, such measures would be undertaken through the United Nations. But if China and Russia continue to block effective U.N. sanctions against Iran, the United States must move ahead in the company of as many other like-minded nations as possible. And if multilateral sanctions are not in the offing, the United States needs to be prepared to tighten and to fully enforce our own sanctions without any exceptions.

Current law imposes sanctions in the U.S. market on any foreign company that invests $20 million or more in the Iranian energy sector. But the law lets the executive branch, at its sole discretion, waive those sanctions. And for years, Mr. Speaker, administrations of both parties have done so without fail.

Since 1999, giant companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, France's Total, Italy's ENI, and Inpex of Japan have invested over $100 billion, over $100 billion, in the Iranian energy industry, and the United States has done nothing to stop them.

If we wish to impose serious and biting sanctions on Iran, effective measures that will change the behavior of the regime in Tehran, it is clear what we must do. We must take away the power from the administration to waive sanctions we pass.

Two days ago on 60 Minutes, the President of Iran had this to say about the issue of nuclear weapons: ``We don't need a nuclear bomb . . . In political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful, it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union.''

I wish that we could take Ahmadinejad at his word, but we obviously cannot. This is the same man who yesterday said, ``Our people are the freest in the world'' and ``there are no homosexuals in Iran.'' We are all aware of the many other absurd and irrational statements that have emanated from Tehran since this man took power.

But there is one arena in which I agree with Ahmadinejad: when he says his country has the same right as every other country to use civilian nuclear power. Every country has that right. But if they all decide to get there by mastering the full nuclear fuel cycle, then the door will be wide open to an unprecedented global proliferation of nuclear weapons.

That is why earlier the House passed my legislation to authorize the creation of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Every country, including Iran, can draw from that bank the nuclear fuel necessary for the production of civilian nuclear energy under strict IAEA safeguards, but no nation will be able to divert nuclear materials for military purposes. The International Atomic Energy Agency supports my approach, as do all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, including our own administration.

One would think that the decision makers in Tehran would look upon this idea of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank as an elegant way to get Iran out of a difficult, unproductive, and singularly isolated situation. I hope that they will take this road and they will use this opportunity to move away from their current isolation in the international community.

And I hope as well that the administration will see its way clear to opening up serious and continuing dialogue with Iran. When I hear it said that it is somehow wrong to talk with Iran, I think back to the days when the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at the United States. Surely, the Soviets then were a great deal more dangerous to us than the Iranian leadership is today, and yet we talked with them daily. We maintained a very active diplomacy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. We were engaged in trade, travel, and cultural exchanges of many types.

Mr. Speaker, I am not alone in hoping that relations with Iran can and will be improved. But as long as irrationality prevails in Tehran, we must be prepared to employ all peaceful means at our disposal to ensure that the regime renounces its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Iran today faces a choice between a very big carrot and a very sharp stick. It is my hope that they will take the carrot, but today we are putting the stick in place.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Middle East Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Ackerman of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Sherman of California.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Texas for raising this issue. The Nunn-Lugar program is one of the most valuable international pieces of legislation since the end of the Second World War. It has gone a long ways in preventing nuclear materials falling into dangerous hands. It is imperative that the Russian Federation work together with the international community to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. I very much look forward to working with my friend from Texas to ensure that that goal and the nonproliferation goals are fully met in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Engel of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the distinguished member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, I submit a series of letters from other committees that have jurisdiction over parts of this legislation.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, September 24, 2007.

Hon. Tom Lantos,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding H.R. 1400--``to

enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran

by imposing economic sanctions against Iran, and for other

purposes''--which was reported by the House Foreign Affairs

Committee on August 2, 2007.

As you know, the Committee on Ways & Means has jurisdiction

over import matters. Accordingly, certain provisions of H.R.

1400 fall under the Committee's jurisdiction.

There have been some productive conversations between the

staffs of our committees, during which we have proposed some

changes to H.R. 1400 that I believe I help clarify the intent

and scope of the measure. My understanding is that there is

an agreement with regard to these changes. Modifications were

made to section 202, relating to additional import sanctions

against Iran, and section 406, relating to certain tax

incentives, was removed. In addition, provisions were

included in section 201 and a new section 307 was added to

H.R. 1400 to clarify that other provisions of the Act did not

affect the President's authority under the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act, particularly as such authority

relates to measures restricting imports.

To expedite this legislation for floor consideration, the

Committee will forgo action on this bill and will not oppose

its consideration on the suspension calendar. This is done

with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice

the Committee or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this, or

similar legislation, in the future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

our understanding with respect to H.R. 1400, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the record.

Sincerely,

Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today is a day of contrast. Today as we stand here in this hallowed Chamber of democracy discussing the threat that Iran poses to the United States and, indeed, to global security, to its own people as well, Iran's leader will later be spewing his venomous rhetoric before the United Nations General Assembly.

Last year, the leader of the Iranian regime called for Israel to be wiped off the map and for a new wave of Palestinian attacks to destroy the Jewish state. He further stated that anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the fury of Islamic nations.

This is not the first time that the Iranian leadership has called for the destruction of Israel. On December 14, 2001, former Iranian leader Rafsanjani threatened Israel with nuclear attack, saying that the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel would destroy that country while it would do little harm to the Islamic world.

Given the Iranian regime's history of acting on its declarations, we should be under no illusions regarding its intentions. And its intentions are to get a nuclear weapon. In fact, they are even taking out advertisements about it.

Let me show you this very revealing ad that appeared in the May issue of the Economist. As they say, ``a picture is worth a thousand words.'' Even as the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that ``gaps remain in the agency's knowledge with respect to the scope and content of Iran's centrifuge program . . . including the role of the military in Iran's nuclear program . . .'' and voiced concern regarding ``undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran,'' and even as additional sanctions were being considered against Iran by the United Nations Security Council, this request for proposals for two new large nuclear plants appeared in a major western magazine. And let me point out that the ad clearly identifies the name of the bank, a European bank. For the record, it is Austria Bank Creditansalt, with the account number clearly evident in the advertisement.

Mr. Speaker, for over 5 years, Iran has been manipulating the international community, buying time to expand and to hide its nuclear program, and it is making rapid progress. The International Atomic Energy Agency report of August 30 of this year stated that Iran is running almost 2,000 centrifuges with as many more being tested or under construction, indicating that it has already overcome many of the roadblocks to manufacturing nuclear fuel, including weapons-grade material.

The estimate of the International Atomic Energy Agency, however, may be too conservative. Iranian leader Ahmadinejad put the number of centrifuges at 3,000 and said that the program was making great strides. His comments underscored his regime's intense focus on its nuclear weapons program and should increase our focus and our sense of urgency.

When thinking of the consequences of an Iranian nuclear bomb, we must always remember that Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism, supplying weapons, funding, training and sanctuary to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas that have murdered countless civilians and threatens our allies in the region and elsewhere; that Iran continues to supply Shiite Islamic groups in Iraq with money, training and weapons that fuel sectarian violence; that Iran is responsible for the deaths of U.S. troops by providing the resources and the materials used for improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and other much more powerful weapons; that Iran is also supplying the Taliban with weapons to use against our troops serving in Afghanistan.

My daughter-in-law is proudly wearing our Nation's uniform right now in Afghanistan, and Iran's work is a danger to her and all of our sons and daughters serving overseas.

However, Tehran's pursuit of these destructive policies has one weakness, namely, its dependence on the revenue derived from energy exports. For that reason, the U.S. has targeted Iran's energy sector, attempting to starve it of its foreign investment. U.S. law prohibits American firms from investing in Iran, but foreign entities continue to do so. To address that problem, my distinguished colleague, my good friend from California, the chairman of our committee, Mr. Lantos, and I introduced the Iran Freedom Support Act, which was enacted into law in September of last year.

This legislation under consideration today, however, H.R. 1400, builds upon that foundation, reiterates the application of the Iran Sanctions Act, ISA, to parent companies of foreign subsidiaries that engage in activities that ISA would prohibit for U.S. entities. Like its predecessors, the Iraq Freedom Support Act and H.R. 957, this bill before us, H.R. 1400, expands the application of the Iran Sanctions Act to any financial institution, insurer, underwriter, guarantor, or other business organization including any foreign subsidiary of the foregoing. Mr. Speaker, this bill enlarges the scope of the ISA sanctions to include the sale of oil or liquefied natural gas tankers.

In addition, the bill before us states the sense of Congress that the United States should prevent foreign banks from providing export credits to foreign entities seeking to invest in Iran's energy sector. And in line with the Iran Freedom Support Act, which urged the President to instruct the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. to push for United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran, this bill before us commends the U.N. Security Council for its previous action and urges additional action.

H.R. 1400 also restricts U.S. nuclear cooperation with any country that helps Iran's nuclear program or transfers advanced conventional weapons or missiles to Iran. This puts countries seeking to maintain good relations with the U.S. on notice that we will not allow ourselves to be used as indirect purveyors of nuclear assistance to Iran.

Finally, let me emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this bill speaks directly to the people of Iran. The regime in Tehran continues its brutal crackdown on human rights advocates, on religious and ethnic minorities, on opponents in the universities and the press, and on dissidents in general. And to address their plight, the bill before us expresses the unwavering support of the American people for the tens of millions of Iranians suffering under a brutal medieval regime.

We must always remember that we share a common enemy, the regime in Tehran, and a common goal, which is freedom.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this time. But I mostly want to thank the chairman of our committee, Mr. Lantos, for his leadership on this issue, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 6 minutes to Mr. Pence, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia of our Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to Mr. Shays of the National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the cochair of the Congressional Iran Working Group.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the chairman, Mr. Lantos.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

All of us know, Mr. Speaker, that Iran is a growing threat to the region and to U.S. national security interests.

Iran's record for supporting Islamic extremists is dangerously supplemented by its continued violation of its nonproliferation obligations, its mockery of the International Atomic Energy Agency process, and its continued defiance of the United Nations Security Council's demands to halt its nuclear enrichment and reprocessing program.

Just last week, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told Britain's newspapers, the Independent and the Guardian, that uranium enrichment was ``like breathing'' for his country, and that Iran would not halt the spinning centrifuges at its main enrichment plant at Natanz, even if the Bush

administration offered security guarantees.

We could just wait for further action from the United Nations to counter the Iranian threat, but even the Iranian regime is aware of the influence of Russia and China at the U.N. Security Council and the refusal of some of our European and Asian allies to sacrifice commercial interests for the sake of nonproliferation.

Just last Wednesday, Iranian leader Ahmadinejad said that U.N. resolutions could not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear technology. He stated, ``Let's say that they issue Resolution Number 300. What will happen? It should be remembered that Iran is obtaining nuclear technology. They will have to eventually accept that.''

Well, for almost 5 years, Mr. Speaker, Iran has been manipulating the so-called international community buying time to expand, to strengthen and to hide its nuclear activities. In fact, recent public reports further document the construction of a major tunnel complex inside the mountain near the Iranian facility at Natans, near the fortified buildings where the Iranian uranium is reportedly being processed.

This clearly illustrates the frenetic and advanced nature of that regime's nuclear weapon pursuit and should increase our sense of urgency. But the regime's pursuit of these destructive policies has one weakness: Iran's energy infrastructure. Iran's economy and its ability to influence events is heavily dependent on the revenues derived from energy exports. As such, recent U.S. efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction have focused on deterring and prohibiting investments in Iran's petroleum sector.

U.S. law prohibits American firms from investing in Iran. In addition, the Iran Sanctions Act seeks to influence responsible nations to stop their investment in Iran's energy sector, that is the economic lifeline of the regime, by calling for sanctions on those entities. Unfortunately, due to lack of enforcement, lack of commitment from some of our allies, foreign entities which fall outside of the jurisdiction of our country continue to invest in Iran, helping to fill the coffers, enabling the regime in Tehran to pursue not just a nuclear capability, but a chemical and biological program, long-range ballistic missiles and, as all of us know, they are a state sponsor of global Islamic extremism and terrorism.

As part of their effort to isolate Iran and deprive it of its revenues, it needs to fund its nuclear weapons program. My distinguished colleague, Chairman Lantos, and I introduced the Iran Freedom Support Act, which was enacted into law in September of last year. This legislation strengthens sanctions against those who invest in Iran's petroleum sector, the economic lifeline of the Iranian regime. However, the final version of the law did not include language that would make export credit agencies, insurers and other financial institutions subject to sanctions for their facilitation of investments in Iran's oil industry.

The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 957 seeks to close this loophole. The imminent need to close this loophole and to compel responsible nations to do the right thing was clearly articulated in February of this year by Ambassador George Schulte, the chief U.S. representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Ambassador Schulte called on European governments to stop giving credits to subsidize exports to Iran and to take more measures to discourage investment and financial investment with Iran.

It is my hope that, despite the clarifications included in the suspension text at the request of other committees, that H.R. 957 is applied vigorously against those governments that claim to support our efforts to stop Iran's nuclear pursuit but fail to take tangible actions to deny the regime the resources to continue along this destructive and dangerous path.

H.R. 957 also seeks to expand the activities covered under the law to include petrochemicals and liquefied natural gas. Concerns were raised that existing law required the clarification that sanctions under the ISA should apply to certain foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies; therefore, H.R. 957 expands and extends the applications to U.S. foreign subsidiaries as defined in the bill.

This is a straightforward bill with a simple purpose: to enhance our ability to deprive Iran of the revenue it needs to fund its nuclear weapons and to secure greater cooperation from European, Asian, Russian and other allies to cut off the flow of funds to Iran. Responsible nations must immediately stop their multi-million, and in some cases billion, dollar investments in Iran's energy sector.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical bipartisan measure to confront the Iranian threat.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I also thank the ranking member and the distinguished chairman of this committee for their extraordinary and visionary work in bringing H.R. 1400 to the floor of this Congress to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by imposing additional economic sanctions against Iran.

As the ranking member and my other senior colleagues have described, this legislation would continue an expanding effort to confront Iran's rhetoric and reality in a manner both diplomatic and economic. And the reasons to do so are legion. Iran, for instance, denies the Holocaust and hosted a Holocaust-denying conference which aired on Arab television across the region.

President Ahmadinejad, as I will describe in a moment, has repeatedly advocated ``wiping Israel off the map.'' Their headlong and reckless pursuit of a nuclear weapons program ominously would enable them to do that in a matter of minutes when combined with their missile technology.

Iran supplies and trains insurgents fighting U.S. forces and Iraqi forces in Iraq, as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker and the physical evidence and the incarceration of Iranian intelligence personnel now in Baghdad attest. Iran supports Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations.

But I want to speak specifically, Mr. Speaker, to yesterday and today's events involving the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who arrived yesterday for a forum in Columbia University and an address at the United Nations today. Let me be clear: If my colleagues have no other reason to support H.R. 1400, we can look to the rhetoric and the statements in the past 48 hours of President Ahmadinejad. He is a destabilizing force leading a threatening country and gave evidence of that repeatedly in statements on American television, Columbia University, and I expect at the U.N. today.

Ahmadinejad veers regularly between the deadly and the bizarre. He is perhaps best known for the menacing statements about advocating the elimination of the State of Israel. But at last year's address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Ahmadinejad told an Iranian cleric that he had felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders as he addressed that body. All of these various threats and outrages are delivered with a trademark eery grin, which would be easy to dismiss as the rantings of a madman were he not vested with the power of a head of state. Yet his musings are as clear and as threatening as those musings written in a prison cell in the 1930s entitled ``Mein Kampf.''

This is a man who is on a misguided mission; he is a dangerous and deluded leader. We ignore his intents at our peril. While his speech at Columbia University yesterday was described as a rambling speech by the New York Times that meandered from science to religion to the creation of human beings, it was his claim that he was a ``peaceful'' man, that Iran possessed, as he made some reference to, a thriving Jewish community, and his claim that Iran was a country where no homosexuals lived. For me, I cannot decide which of those statements was more Orwellian or more offensive to reality or to western respect for individual liberty. But they do give us a window into the mindset of a leader.

And, Mr. Speaker, I believe no terrorist despot deserves an Ivy League forum, and have said so. On ``60 Minutes'' Sunday night, Ahmadinejad refused to address what we all know to be true: his forces and weaponry, as I said before, are directly implicated in the deaths of American forces in Iraq, and that would have been reason enough to deny him a podium.

Now, we are occasionally told, and maybe some will hesitate to support this legislation today because Ahmadinejad is not in charge, that some believe a relatively moderate group of clerics are the real power in Iran. But in a military parade just Saturday, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, allegedly a moderate in some versions, had a banner displayed alongside him that read: ``The Iranian Nation is ready to bring any oppressive power to its knees.'' Clearly, this threatening posture is deep-seated; it is not focused on one man.

But I think as we argue today for H.R. 1400 to bring additional economic sanctions against Iran, we should look at the man who is the leader of the country. H.R. 1400, sponsored by our distinguished chairman and ranking minority member, does the reasonable step of imposing additional economic sanctions against Iran.

But let me say I believe it is imperative that we must continue to use every tool in our power to pressure and isolate this dangerous and threatening regime. And the people of the United States of America, the U.N. Security Council, our neighbors and allies in the region also need to be prepared to keep all options on the table as we confront this regime. It is my hope H.R. 1400, with its diplomatic and economic initiative, will prevail and bring Iran back from the nuclear brink, and that would be my prayer. But we must remain committed to the notion that this nation and this leader in Iran must not be permitted to come into possession of a usable nuclear weapon.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its current form, I am.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for his hard work on this issue. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee. We're good friends. And all three of us come from the West, where we are very familiar with public ownership of land.

One of the things that really concerns us most about the threat of condemnation and about the way that home owners, private property owners would be affected is shown in this chart that I have here. The management plan would put a cap on impervious services, and those services could not be paved. If the road to your house washes out, then you simply can't do it.

Now, there are all sorts of takings that the Federal Government can do, and this is one, where they simply won't allow you to fix your property up or fix the roads leading to your property.

So you would lose value because you could not own a house and sell a house that has a road leading to it that has washed out. You cannot add a room to your home; so feasibly we could say that we are limiting procreation. If you have another kid, you can't build a room in the back to accommodate them. You can't go build on your property if you have not already built there. You can't go in and build. The private land is impacted seriously.

But beyond that is there a real concern? Do we have a concern for the public taking of private lands and making it theirs? Are there examples in our history as a Nation where we maybe have extended the power of a Federal Government, a central government that is too strong, a central government that begins to overburden and outweigh and out muscle the citizens? If so, then it is imperative that we give voice to those citizens who have no other voice, who have been left out completely, who are going to be marginalized by these management plans.

I think that we do have a Federal Government that will extend too far, and I think that we have a concern here. Now, it is unfortunate that we have come to this point because the underlying bill, the one that says we would like to preserve a wild and scenic river, is one that there is almost no discussion about. The entire discussion is about private property rights, that constitutional right that gives us each our place to retreat to in the evening without the government's coming in and taking either part of its value or simply confiscating the whole thing.

Now, confiscation is a language that seems abrupt, that seems too harsh, that we really do not face that sort of circumstance today in this country. I would tell you that, as chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee last year, we heard testimony from the Franciscan Friars of Atonement in New York. That group had fought the National Park Service for decades, saying don't take our land. But through eminent domain, the Federal Park Service had continued to put pressure. Again, it was the threat of what they could do that was used as the hammer.

So we find ourselves now with this bill, which the ranking member adequately points out that there is an underlying bill that contains language that nothing contained in this section shall preclude the use of condemnation. It is a process that has been used frequently.

I was recently in Shenandoah National Park, and you would think that Shenandoah is just a great location, and it is. But the underlying story is one that is told right now in the Visitors Center in Shenandoah, and it is about the confiscation, about moving, it seems to me, about 4,000 families out of their homes so that that could be a big park area. We did not want those inconvenient people living there; so we simply moved them out for their own good. We moved them to much better places regardless if they wanted to move or not.

In my own State of New Mexico, the White Sands Missile Range exists there. It is 100 miles north and south and it is 40 miles east and west, 100 miles by 40 miles, and almost all of that land was taken by condemnation.

Condemnation occurs when a too strong central Federal Government just wants to go ahead and move. Forget those pesky citizens.

The Supreme Court recently in the Kelo decision said that governments can, in fact, take private property and redistribute it to another private firm. That is what is at stake both left and right. Both agreed in this circumstance. Liberal and conservative, Democrats and Republicans, said the Kelo decision was one of the most atrocious in taking private property rights away from people.

Madam Speaker, I would simply point out that private property rights are the foundation of our rights. I would urge all Members to vote for the motion to recommit.